The aim of the paper is to identify main topics and patterns of description and analysis adopted in recent studies dedicated to the memory/-ies in Istria. The region in question is a peninsula situated in Slovenia and Croatia, previously being a part of Austria-Hungary, Italy, and finally Yugoslavia. It is a classical example of "bloodlands" (to borrow a term introduced by T. Snyder), namely of a Central/Eastern European borderland with mixed population and shifting frontiers, affected first by clashes between local rising nationalisms, and then by totalitarian regimes, atrocities of the World War II, and transfers of population in its aftermath. Seen from this perspective, the history of the 20th-century Istria is based on conflict between the Italian and the "Slavic" (Slovenian/Croatian) population, reaching its climax in the final period of the WWII and the first postwar years. That time was marked by emigration of numerous Italians from the then Yugoslav Istria and preceded by widespread acts of violence committed mostly against the Italian population who was associated with the Fascist regime and its policies towards the non-Italian locals. The Istrian karst, labyrinthine sinkholes, so called foibe, serving as burial places for victims of those waves of violence, became a powerful symbol of the Italian experience of the WWII in the area of the country's "Eastern frontier".
The analyzed papers, mostly published in the last decade, are usually focused on the present-days politics of remembrance, increased interest in the past events and their reinterpretations, and on an allegedly ongoing conflict between the Italian and Slovenian/Croatian memories. They also express a general distrust in the post-1990 memory revival and its political background. On the other hand, some authors challenge an ecumenical vision of a peaceful, open and multiethnic society of the pre-1918 Istria, opposed to the Balkan hinterland, as colonial and orientalizing the local Slovenian and Croatian population. Thus, it seems that the diverging or even mutually excluding memories in Istria are transferred into studies on them. They potentially contribute to a consolidation of persisting divisions and to a perception of the national conflict between the Italians and the "Slavs" as perennial.
Yet, some examples, including i.a. the studies by K. Hrobat-Virloget or B. Klabjan, differ from the mentioned pattern, by focusing on local remembrance efforts initiated "from below", commonly by people of different nationalities, or by expanding the topics of research to the memory of other Istrian (immigrant) inhabitants, until now voiceless in a bipolar perception of the peninsula's ethnic reality. By recalling these works, I will try to address the following questions: what are the limits of studies focused mostly on officially inspired remembrance acts and on conflicting national perspectives? Why it would be useful to change this perspective in the context of memory studies dedicated to Istria? What other topics can be included in the memory research agenda in order to challenge a traditional, "bloodlands-style" approach to the 20th-century Istrian and – more broadly – Central/Eastern European past?
